- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2025 (LB-RES) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 134 OF 2025 IN W.A. No. 191/2025 BETWEEN: 1. TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKUR - 572 102 …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. TUMKUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER TUMKUR - 572 101 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 3. C.B. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O. CHIKKARANGAIAH RESIDING AT SJR LADIES HOSTEL AMARAJYOTHINAGAR KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 105 NOW RESIDING AT NEAR RAVINDRA TOYOTA SHOWROOM MELEKOTE, TUMKUR - 572 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & SRI T. GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 IN W.P. No. 8003/2020 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION No. 8003/2020 & ETC. IN CCC NO. 134/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C.B. NARASIMHAIAH S/O SRI CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT SJR LADIES HOSTEL AMARAJYOTHI NAGAR KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 105 NOW R/AT NEAR RAVEENDRA TOYOTO SHOW ROOM MELEKOTE, TUMAKURU - 572 102 ...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI T. GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 …PRO FORMA RESPONDENT 2. SRI NATARAJU THE COMMISSIONER OF THE TUMAKURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BELAGUMBA ROAD TUMAKURU - 572 102 ...ACCUSED (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.2) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 AND ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HIS WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE FINAL ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. NO.40/2024 (LB-RES) C/W W.P. 8003/2020 (LB-RES) DATED 08.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application –I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.40/2024 (LB-RES) clubbed with WP.No.8003/2020 (LB-RES). The respondent had filed the said petitions, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 28.11.2023 and an endorsement dated 11.02.2020. 3. The respondent (writ petitioner) was allotted a property bearing Site No.1425 in Melekote, Veerasagara residential layout, Tumakuru (subject property). The said allotment was made as the petitioner's property was utilized for construction of a railway over bridge at Upparahalli, Tumakuru City. The said allotment was in addition to payment of compensation for utilization of his land. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 4. The price of the allotted land was fixed at Rs.300/- per sq. ft. The record indicates that the allotment was for an area of 2955 sq.ft. for an aggregate value of Rs.5,17,016/-. Subsequently, a lease-cum-sale deed was executed. However, the said lease-cum-sale deed was in respect of an area measuring 265.90 sq.mtrs., which was less than 2955 sq.ft. The writ petitioner had thereafter raised the construction on the allotted site (Site No.1425). 5. The controversy essentially arises in view of the appellant's assertion that the writ petitioner has now encroached upon the adjoining plot (Site No.1425A) to the extent of 1124 sq.ft. Since the construction had been raised on it, a proposal was mooted to sell the additional land (which was allegedly encroached upon by the writ petitioner) to the writ petitioner. A communication dated 11.02.2020 was addressed by the appellant to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka, to the effect that the said encroached land be allotted to the writ petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,580/- per square feet. The said communication dated 11.02.2020, was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 6. While the writ petitions were pending, the appellant had also issued another notice dated 28.11.2023 for removal of the encroachment. This was also brought to the notice of the Court during the course of the writ petition. It was the writ petitioner’s contention that the additional land was required to be allotted to him at the same rate as the original land, that is, at the rate of about Rs. 300/- per sq.ft. 7. The learned Single Judge did not accept the writ petitioner's contention that the additional land to the extent of 1124 sq.ft. (104.45 sq.mtrs.) was required to be allotted at the same rate as Site No.1425. Accordingly, the writ petitioner's challenge to the communication dated 11.02.2020 was rejected. Consequently, the learned Single Judge by way of the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 permitted the writ petitioner to pay the price of Rs.1,580/- per sq.ft. for the additional area within a period of three months. And, further restrained the appellant from taking any coercive measures during the said period. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 8. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, assailed the same by filing an appeal being WA.No.866/2024 (LB-RES). The writ petitioner was not successful and the said appeal was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 20.09.2024. The decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld as this Court found that there was no ground to interfere with the said order. 9. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the appellant filed a review petition being RP.No.476/2024, seeking review of the impugned order. It is the appellant's contention that the communication dated 11.02.2020 was an internal communication between the appellant and the Government of Karnataka proposing to allot the additional land at the rate of Rs. 1,580/- per square foot. However, that proposal was not accepted as the adjoining site (Site No.1425A) part of which is allegedly encroached upon by the writ petitioner, is required to be sold through auction and the same could not be allotted otherwise. Since the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner (WA.No.866/2024-LB-RES) was disposed of, the learned Single Judge also disposed of the review petition. In the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the value of the land in the vicinity is significantly higher and the properties have been sold in auction at the rate of approximately Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. He also submits that the guidance value of the land is about Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. and therefore the writ petitioner would have no right to acquire the additional land at the rate of Rs.1580/- per sq.ft. He also submits that the copy of the said communication dated 11.02.2020 was not addressed to the writ petitioner. The same was an internal communication between the appellant and the State Government of Karnataka. Since the Government has rejected the proposal for allotment of additional 1124 sq.ft. of land at the rate of Rs.1,580/- to the writ petitioner; the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside. 11. We have carefully examined the controversy in the present appeal. There is considerable merit in the contention that the writ petitioner is not vested with any right to acquire the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 additional land at the rate of Rs.1,580/- per sq.ft. on the basis of the communication dated 11.02.2020. The writ petitioner was allotted land measuring 2955 sq. ft. and does not have any right to insist on allotment of a larger area. 12. It is also relevant to note that it is the writ petitioner's contention that the order dated 11.02.2020 is unsustainable. The writ petitioner had prayed for the said communication (assuming the same to be an order) to be set aside. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not drawn our attention to any document which would create any right with the writ petitioner to be allocated additional land at the aforementioned rate of Rs.1,580/- per sq.ft. 13. We may also note that the writ petitioner has contended that the order dated 30.10.2010 (allotment order) cannot be disputed and the writ petitioner is entitled to 2955 (two thousand nine hundred and fifty-five sq.ft. of land). The said order indicates that in terms of the decision dated 26.06.2009 of the appellant, plots were allocated to 8 (eight) persons, including the writ petitioner at the rate of Rs.175/- per sq.ft. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 said order also indicates that a total area of 2955 sq.ft. was allotted to the writ petitioner. Concededly, the writ petitioner would be entitled to an area of 2955 sq.ft. in terms of the Allotment Letter. Thus, the writ petitioner's grievance to the extent that a lesser area of 265.90 sq.mtrs. has been conveyed to writ petitioner is justified. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also does not dispute that the writ petitioner would be entitled to an additional area to the extent of 93 sq.ft. 14. In order to encourage the parties to resolve the controversy, this Court had passed the following order on 25.11.2025 in the present writ appeal. "1. It is contented on behalf of respondent No.3 that he was allotted a site measuring 2955 sq.ft. for an amount of Rs.5,17,016/-. However, the lease-cum-sale deed executed is for an area of 265.90 sq.mtrs. which is less than 2955 sq.ft. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even if the benefit of the difference is granted to respondent No.3, the respondent is required to pay the market value on the balance land which has been encroached upon by the respondent. He submits that since the respondent - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 has already raised a construction on the said portion, a quietus can be put to the dispute if the respondent agrees to pay the guidance value which is in the vicinity of Rs.3,000/- per sq. ft. for the balance area. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 seeks time to take instructions in this regard. 4. List on 27.11.2025". 15. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is not agreeable to pay the guidance value (which is approximately Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft.) for the additional land allegedly encroached upon by the writ petitioner. He submits that he has no objection for the appellant to take over any additional land, which is found to be encroached upon, i.e., the land in excess of 2955 sq.ft. 16. In aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is bound down to the statement to the effect that the writ petitioner would be entitled to additional 93 sq.ft. of land in terms of the allotment letter dated 30.10.2010. It is directed that a supplementary sale deed to the extent of 93 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49329-DB WA No. 191 of 2025 C/W CCC No. 134 of 2025 sq.ft. be executed in favour of the writ petitioner at the original rates at which the Site No.1425 was conveyed to the writ petitioner. The appellant is at liberty to take such proceedings in accordance with law in respect to land in excess of 2955 sq.ft. which falls within adjoining site – Site no. 1425A. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 17. In view of the order passed in WA.No.191/2025, the present complaint (CCC No. 134/2025) does not survive. It is, accordingly, disposed of. 18. Pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12